Nevada Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability After Foster v. Costco

To win a slip and fall claim in Nevada, you must prove the property owner failed to exercise ordinary reasonable care and that failure caused your injury. Nevada uses modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar under NRS 41.141.

Proving a slip and fall claim in Nevada

Nevada's premises liability framework is rooted in common-law negligence, as shaped by the Nevada Supreme Court's landmark decision in Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 772, 291 P.3d 150 (2012). Under that framework, a property owner owes a general duty of ordinary reasonable care to everyone lawfully on the property.

Trespassers are the exception, and it is a statutory one. Under NRS 41.515(1), an owner of any estate or interest in premises, or a lessee or occupant, "owes no duty of care to a trespasser." The statute allows liability only in three narrow situations: the owner willfully or wantonly causes the harm; the owner fails to exercise reasonable care after discovering the trespasser's presence in a place of danger; or the trespasser is a child injured by an artificial condition where the owner should have expected children to trespass and the burden of eliminating the danger was slight compared to the risk. If you were on the property without express or implied consent, that statute, not Foster's general reasonable-care duty, sets the standard.

To succeed on a slip and fall claim, you must establish four elements. First, the owner owed you a duty of care, which Nevada extends to all lawful entrants under Foster's general reasonable-care standard, whether you were a business customer, a social guest, or otherwise there with permission. Second, a hazardous condition existed on the property, such as a wet floor, broken pavement, or unmarked step. Third, the owner had notice of the hazard, either actual notice (the owner or an employee knew of the condition) or constructive notice (the condition existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have revealed it). Fourth, the dangerous condition caused your fall and resulting injuries.

Notice is typically the most contested element. Courts look at how long the hazard existed, whether any employees were nearby, whether surveillance footage captured when the condition appeared, and whether prior complaints or incidents were reported. The longer a hazard goes unaddressed, the stronger the constructive-notice argument.

The open-and-obvious doctrine in Nevada

Nevada treats an open-and-obvious hazard as a comparative-fault factor only, not as a bar to recovery. In Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 772, 291 P.3d 150 (2012), the Nevada Supreme Court expressly rejected the traditional rule that an obvious danger automatically relieves a landowner of liability. The Court held that landowners owe a general duty of reasonable care to lawful entrants and that this duty does not vanish simply because a hazard is visible.

This is an important protection for injured plaintiffs. Under the old rule, a defendant could win at summary judgment by showing the hazard was obvious. After Foster, summary judgment on open-and-obvious grounds alone is generally improper. The question of whether a reasonable landowner should have addressed the hazard, and whether a reasonable entrant should have noticed and avoided it, both go to the jury.

In practice, the obviousness of a hazard informs the comparative-fault analysis. If you stepped over a clearly marked wet-floor sign and fell anyway, the jury may assign you a higher percentage of fault, reducing or potentially eliminating your recovery. But the visibility of the hazard is weighed by the jury as one factor, not applied by a judge as a categorical bar.

Ice, snow, and natural accumulation in Nevada

No published Nevada decision has adopted the "natural accumulation" no-duty rule that protects landowners in several Midwestern and Northeastern states. Under that rule, a property owner owes no duty to remove ice or snow that accumulated naturally from precipitation. Nevada's appellate courts have never embraced it, so ordinary negligence principles govern instead.

Under the Foster reasonable-care standard, a Nevada landowner owes a general duty of ordinary care to lawful entrants, and that duty extends to ice and snow hazards on the property. No Nevada authority grants blanket immunity for naturally fallen ice or snow. If a property owner knows or should know that ice has formed in a parking lot, on an entryway ramp, or on exterior stairs, reasonable care may require removal, sanding, salting, or drainage measures depending on the circumstances.

That said, snow and ice falls are litigated far less often in Nevada than in colder states, and no Nevada appellate decision squarely addresses the natural-accumulation question, so expect the analysis to run through ordinary negligence rather than a dedicated ice-and-snow doctrine. The governing question in any particular case is whether the owner exercised ordinary reasonable care given the foreseeability and gravity of potential harm and the feasibility of precautions, not whether the ice formed naturally or artificially.

How fault is shared: Nevada's negligence rule

Nevada follows modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar under NRS 41.141(1). The statute provides that a plaintiff's comparative negligence does not bar recovery if the plaintiff's fault "was not greater than" the negligence of the defendants. This means a plaintiff who is exactly 50% at fault still recovers (with damages reduced by 50%), but a plaintiff who is 51% or more at fault recovers nothing.

In practical terms: if a jury awards $120,000 in damages but assigns you 35% of the fault, you recover $78,000. If the jury assigns you 51% or more of the fault, you recover zero regardless of how severe your injuries are.

When multiple defendants are involved, NRS 41.141 requires that the plaintiff's fault be compared to the combined fault of all defendants. This prevents defendants from escaping liability by fragmenting the total negligence across many parties. Note that under NRS 41.141(4), each defendant is generally severally liable only for the portion of the judgment representing its own percentage of negligence. The exceptions are listed in NRS 41.141(5), which leaves joint and several liability intact for actions based on strict liability, an intentional tort, the emission, disposal or spillage of a toxic or hazardous substance, the concerted acts of the defendants, or an injury resulting from a product manufactured, distributed, sold or used in Nevada.

The Foster open-and-obvious analysis connects directly to this rule. A defense lawyer will argue that if you saw the hazard and walked into it anyway, your fault percentage should be high enough to approach or exceed the 51% threshold, wiping out your recovery. The more evidence you can present that the hazard was not obvious or that you exercised reasonable caution, the lower your assigned fault percentage and the larger your recovery.

Deadlines: statute of limitations and government claims

Missing a filing deadline in a Nevada slip and fall case is typically fatal to your claim, so acting promptly is critical.

Personal-injury statute of limitations: Under NRS 11.190(4)(e), you have 2 years from the date of the fall to file a personal-injury lawsuit in Nevada court. The discovery rule may delay the start of this clock if you did not and reasonably could not have known about the injury at the time of the fall. Tolling may also apply for minors and for periods of legal incapacity under NRS 11.250. For more on Nevada's civil deadlines, see the Nevada statute of limitations page.

Government notice of claim: If you fell on property owned or controlled by the State of Nevada or a local government entity (a city park, county building, public sidewalk, or state-operated facility), Nevada's tort-claims statute, NRS 41.036, applies. You must file a written notice of claim with the Attorney General (for State claims) or with the local entity's governing body (for city or county claims). Nevada is notably different from most states: NRS 41.036(3) expressly states that filing this notice is not a condition precedent to bringing suit under NRS 41.031, and there is no short 90- or 180-day notice-of-claim deadline. The practical deadline mirrors the 2-year statute of limitations. Even so, filing early is advisable because any lawsuit itself must be brought within the 2-year limitations period.

The $200,000 government damages cap: A fall on public property carries a ceiling that a claim against a private owner does not. Under NRS 41.035(1), an award in a tort action brought under NRS 41.031, or against a present or former officer or employee of the State or a political subdivision acting within the scope of public duties or employment, may not exceed $200,000 per claimant, exclusive of interest computed from the date of judgment. That statute also bars any award of exemplary or punitive damages. The cap applies to your recovery as a whole, economic and non-economic damages combined, so a serious injury on government property can be worth far less than the same injury in a private store.

What a Nevada slip and fall claim is worth

The value of a Nevada slip and fall claim depends on the nature and extent of your injuries, the strength of your liability evidence, and the comparative-fault assignment.

Economic damages include medical expenses (emergency treatment, surgery, physical therapy, future care), lost wages and diminished earning capacity, and out-of-pocket costs such as home modifications or assistive devices. In a claim against a private property owner, economic damages in Nevada are uncapped.

Non-economic damages cover pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and similar intangible harms. Nevada does not impose a general statutory cap on non-economic damages in ordinary premises-liability cases against private owners, so these damages are determined by the jury based on the severity and permanence of your injuries.

The government exception: If your fall was on state, city or county property, NRS 41.035(1) caps your entire award at $200,000 per claimant, exclusive of post-judgment interest, and bars punitive damages. That single limit covers economic and non-economic damages together.

Comparative-fault reduction: Whatever total damages a jury finds, they are reduced by your assigned percentage of fault. A $200,000 verdict with 25% fault assigned to you yields a $150,000 recovery. If your fault reaches 51%, the reduction is total.

Use the Nevada Slip and Fall Settlement Calculator to explore how these variables interact for your specific situation.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Premises liability law varies by state and changes, and case values depend on the specific facts. For advice about a specific fall, consult a licensed attorney in Nevada.

Related:

• Slip and Fall Laws by State (full 50-state hub)
• Nevada Slip and Fall Settlement Calculator

More Nevada Laws

• Nevada Car Accident Laws
• Nevada Dog Bite Laws
• Nevada Statute of Limitations